From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]:52416 "EHLO mail-iw0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751752AbZL1QKb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:10:31 -0500 Received: by iwn1 with SMTP id 1so7345173iwn.33 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:10:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1261988312.22470.5.camel@johannes.local> References: <1261970308-22926-1-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1261988312.22470.5.camel@johannes.local> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:10:10 -0800 Message-ID: <43e72e890912280810o6a2d3f9dye562c75061e1f486@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: delete addba_resp_timer when stop Tx BA session To: Johannes Berg Cc: Zhu Yi , linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 11:18 +0800, Zhu Yi wrote: >> We start an one shot addba_resp_timer in ieee80211_start_tx_ba_session >> but don't delete it in __ieee80211_stop_tx_ba_session. This will cause >> problem in suspend and resume. When suspend happens without the timer >> deleted, the timer handler will be called immediately after resume and >> messes up driver status. >> >> See http://bugzilla.intellinuxwireless.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2134 >> comment #22 for more details. > > Hmm. The timer checks > >        if ((*state & (HT_ADDBA_REQUESTED_MSK | HT_ADDBA_RECEIVED_MSK)) != >                                                HT_ADDBA_REQUESTED_MSK) { > > which /should/ make it a no-op in the case you mention because we tear > down sessions, or does that not reset their state properly? > > Ok, so ___ieee80211_stop_tx_ba_session() doesn't, in fact, clear the > mask right away, so I think we should add HT_AGG_STATE_REQ_STOP_BA_MSK > to the code I quoted above? When the patch addresses the above can you cc stable if applicable. > In any case the del_timer_sync isn't right there and we also shouldn't > really use it (per Linus) Why is that? Luis